Some people don't get it! The issue is not Hicks himself: at best a zealot and an adventurist in the wrong place at the wrong time? Nor is the issue whether Hicks is guilty of what they - eventually - charged him with. As for his pleading guilty: prisoners always did it in the Soviet era show trials. You do that after years of mistreatment, solitary confinement, located in a gulag, and interrogation.

The issue is that the Bush regime incarcerated him - not as an enemy soldier (although, according to Bush he is a "war president") and the fact they initially accused him of firing on Americans - for more than five years without charge or trial. And his treatment was contrary to the Geneva convention. The further issue for Australians is that the Bush regime did this with the explicit approval of the Howard Government.

The Howard Government - and all its members (my local member and yours) are equally guilty, because they let Howard and Ruddock get away with it - is an accessory to an obscene abuse of habeas corpus, one of the legal pillars of a democratic society. This is a Government which has voted itself authoritarian powers under its anti-terror legislation and with the enhancement of sedition laws. These laws also abuse the principle of habeas corpus. The Government did this in the name of protecting Australians against imminent terrorism. Terrorism which, however remotely possible beforehand, the Howard Government made more likely by supporting Bush's adventurism in Iraq. Iraq was, and now is not because of the child-like policies of the White House, irrelevant to the Al Qaida threat. John Howard has made Australians a target.

Who is worse? An adventurist captured in Afghanistan or a Prime Minister and an Attorney general who abuse the legal principles of democratic law?

There are frequently situations where governments or government bodies find themselves with the need to make a decision, but without the tools or procedures with which to make one. I suggest that this might be one such case.

It happened on a much smaller scale recently in Sydney when a train broke down on the Harbour Bridge. It took three hours for the obvious decision - get the passengers off and walk them 200m to the station - to be made, because there was no-one who felt capable of taking the responsibility.

Having captured Hicks, the US found itself in the same situation: keeping him in Guantanamo Bay (cf. on the train) was a politically safer option than setting him free (cf. walking him to the station). And they couldn't put him on trial because the evidence they was inadequate (cf. insufficient decision support).

We who live in the real world can only look on in wonder at the paralysis this creates.

>>How is that the US and Australia have turned someone who received terrorist training and enlisted with the Taliban into a popular hero?<<

The "popular hero" tag is pure journalistic fancy. But most people dislike bullies, and after five years of semi-public bullying even the most despicable tyrant gets some level of sympathy from humankind. That's all. If he had been dealt with quickly, and with visible justice, - even if it resulted in life imprisonment - there wouldn't be a fraction of the sympathy he is currently receiving.

>>How did the straightforward prosecution of an enemy combatant turn into such a political and public relations disaster?<<

That is far a more realistic question than churning out the "popular hero" nonsense. It was a failure of the US justice process, fed by arrogance and lack of political will on the part of both the US and Australian administrations.

Related to the Hicks issue (and this excellent article) I want to add a bit of perspective.

Revenge is primitive and un-Western but it explains much about America's post 9/11 foreign and judicial policies.

The conscious or unconscious feeling of revenge for 9/11 among Americans is very real. 9/11 was a mass foreign attack on the US resulting in almost 3,000 dead. How would we feel if it had happened in Sydney in 2001? How would we react?

Americans recognise Hicks trained under bin Laden's influence in Afghanistan at the same time that country was bin Laden's command centre for the 9/11 operation.

Naturally this does not absolve the US of blame for the inhumane way it has treated Hicks but massive foreign terrorist assaults can influence things.

Australia's anti terror laws, in their formulation and (more importantly) implementation, have been very mild to the handling of anti terror laws in the US and UK. From this it seems that those countries that suffer the most from terrorism react the most. Whether or not terrorists gain from these reactions we should ask:

“why can't countries/governments react sharply on behalf of their people who have suffered?”

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

We can never know if Hicks is guilty, people say anything to escape torture. I note even ninemsm survey says 60% of people thik Hicks is innocent. The US government have shown themselves to be criminals in more way than one. My heart weeps for the many decent Americans those reputation has been blackened by Neo-con nutters.

I see a lot of people mystified that Hicks is being given hero status... well, you need only look as far as Ned Kelly to see how Australians will idolise someone who they feel has been mistreated - regardless of the character of the victim. By all accounts, Ned Kelly wasn't a pleasant man.

But on the Hicks matter - I don't have much time for those who make him out to be some kind of hero.
But that doesn't mean we can discard legal principles that are a pretty important element of our society.

Why has the military commission accepted a plea of guilty?For expediency?Not enough evidence?Pressure from an ally?Advice from counsel that not to would lead to conviction and life imprisonment?
For the military commission to reject his plea of guilty and put Hicks on trial would appease those who have misgivings about his culpability.
Much has been said about the unfairness of holding him prisoner without a trial for so long.Is it not correct that a nation at war can intern the enemy until such hostilities cease?